Comment by buster3000 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by buster3000 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

the use of "flimsy contraption" and "first nudge" indicates your level of ignorance of the subject.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/kinetic-energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali#Description

"Description

Dali is a Neopanamax container ship[7] with an overall length of 299.92 metres (984 ft), beam of 48.2 metres (158 ft 2 in), moulded depth of 24.8 metres (81 ft 4 in), and summer draft of 15.03 metres (49 ft 4 in). Her gross and net tonnages are 91,128 and 52,150, respectively, and her deadweight tonnage is 116,851 tonnes. Her container capacity is 9,971 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU).[2][8]

Dali is propelled by a single low-speed two-stroke crosshead diesel engine coupled to a fixed-pitch propeller. Her main engine, a 9-cylinder MAN-B&W 9S90ME-C9.2[9] unit manufactured by Hyundai Heavy Industries under license, is rated 41,480 kW (55,630 hp) at 82.5 rpm.[2] Her service speed is 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph).[5] For maneuvering in ports, Dali has a single 3,000 kW (4,000 hp) bow thruster. Electricity is generated onboard by two 3,840 kW (5,150 hp) and two 4,400 kW (5,900 hp) auxiliary diesel generators.[4] "

As is often the case, the truth is far more complicated.

Firstly, the bridge - while up to code - did not have the kinds of buffers that could have been installed, or arguably should have been installed [1]

It isn't wrong to say that if you are going to authorise large container ships, if you are going to profit from large container ships as a harbour, and you are not going to invest properly in the infrastructure, you should take some of the blame when things inevitably go wrong. I don't know whether such buffers would have entirely saved the bridge or the people on it.

It also isn't wrong to say that if you are operating a large container ship, you should ensure it has failsafes in case of power failure. I don't know what failsafes exist (emergency anchors? Some kind of manual rudder?) that would be effective on a ship that large.

It also isn't wrong to say that given the public outcry, a scapegoat will likely be chosen, and it's more likely that they will scapegoat the foreigners rather than blame the politicians in charge of public spending.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/26/baltimore-br...

> It also isn't wrong to say that if you are operating a large container ship, you should ensure it has failsafes in case of power failure. I don't know what failsafes exist (emergency anchors? Some kind of manual rudder?) that would be effective on a ship that large.

All large vessels require emergency generators. The requirement is usually startup within 45s but better performance is generally expected.

Here is an in-depth look on how steering systems on such vessels work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JElUSyNIJGo

This does raise the question of whether the new bridge will need to be larger and stronger. Will it need to be designed to withstand the hit from these new larger vessels?

>A notable example of dolphins used to protect a bridge is the Sunshine Skyway Bridge across the mouth of Tampa Bay. In 1980, the MV Summit Venture hit a pier on one of the bridge's two, two-lane spans causing a 1,200-foot (370 m) section of the bridge to fall into the water, resulting in 35 deaths. When a replacement span was designed, a top priority was to prevent ships from colliding with the new bridge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure)#To_protect...

Ideally they'll put dolphins protecting the piers, but they may be constrained with channel width and location. The key would be to keep the piers from being hit, not to withstand a hit.

Flimsy:

- You are arguing how big the container ship is,

- It only emphasizes how weak the bridge is compared to the ship and obviously to all ships going through this harbor.

Obviously the bridge is not flimsy compared to mere thousands of cars, but when it’s a bumper on the side of the regular path of herds of 200 elephants of about 1000x the normal size ten times a day, then yes, it’s flimsy.

If you see a sign “Forbidden to elephants” tomorrow on your city’s preferred pedestrian bridge, it’s me. Now I wonder why your politicians didn’t put it for the bridge. It’s simple: The port should pay for dolphins and all security measures, or only sailboats will be allowed.

So yes, you arguing the size of the ship only emphasizes the flimsiness of the contraption.

I agree that:

> "flimsy contraption" and "first nudge"

Is crap just wanted to note that bridge protection do exist, Ex: https://www.drba.net/drba-proceeds-new-bridge-ship-collision...

So it could be argued that part of the responsibility is on the port authority that did not correctly ensure the safeguard of the bridge.

Pretty sure they're being sarcastic.

Can you explain?

It obviously reads as satire.

Could I bother you explain? I'm slow and I don't see it. Just reads as a bad take.

The level of "outrage" deliberately exceeds the reasonableness of their position, which strongly suggests they're being sarcastic.

- They use "unacceptable" twice in a row, which sounds exaggerated.

- Likewise with all the exclamation points.

- They say "It was irresponsible to let ships pass a dozen times a day through a flimsy contraption that could collapse at the first nudge.", but ships pass under bridges all the time. IIRC, in Baltimore's case, I'm not even sure you can exit the inner harbor without going under that bridge.

- "The people of Baltimore have benefited for years of a port facility literally downtown, which is practically the same thing as building houses in a flood zone. Should have never been permitted!" Ports are literally designed to be on water, and the comparison makes no sense. Combined with the exclamation points, I don't think this is serious.

- "I hope “We The People” accepts the responsibility for their actions!" This is comedic. You have the excess exclamation point, and it even implies that we're collectively to blame for this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com